Meta-gaming or not?, Whatcha think! Options

[Rand]

OK, so in last nights game, 2 characters and the bad guys had the same initiative total (14). I resolved them in the order of highest reaction to lowest. The guy with the lowest wanted to attack the enemy that was most hurt as opposed to closest and I said that the actions were happening so fast, and so close together that he couldn't actively choose his target using the game information of who was hurt and who wasn't, but I would allow him to "choose" to attack the closest target. (I would imagine one would think that they would be the most threat and attack them on instinct alone.) Or that he could roll randomly (50/50). He thought I was wrong by not letting him choose his target. What do you think?

[Cheops]

Isn't there still a Free Action to Observe in Passing? I would have docked him his free action and had him make a Perception test at -3 dice for being distracted. If you wanted to do stuff by some sort of rules.

[Tanegar]

Depends on how obviously hurt the target is. If he's clutching a bleeding wound (previous gunshot or stab wound), I'd allow it. If he's just banged up a little, I might require the PC to take a Simple Action to Observe in Detail to determine who was worse off. Remember, a combat round is three seconds, and the adrenaline rush of combat can dilate the perception of time. If the PC has multiple initiative passes, whether through augmentation, magic, or drugs, I think we can safely assume his temporal perception is dilated even further. What might seem fast to an outside observer could look downright stately to one of the combatants.

Also remember, good GMs look for ways to say, "Yes" more than "No."

[Method]

I don't think you were being unreasonable, but as others have said you could have allowed him to try with some kind of penalty. I would also point out that if he was last anyway he could have delayed his action to see who was hurt the worst but that's just a technicality.

[Yerameyahu]

No, he's not entitled to use game information like that. A big bleeding slash could be fewer boxes of damage than a subtle bullet hole, so not even direct visual evidence (which he'd need that Simple Action to get) would necessarily be enough.

[Mayhem_2006]

In future, make sure you don't give the players hard data on wounds - just describe what their character sees...

[nezumi]

Without using an action to observe in detail, he can choose based on who is closest, who has the best tactical position, who is firing back, who the party is firing at, etc. He cannot fire based on who has the most boxes of damage. If he does take time to observe in detail, then yes, he has the information about who is most wounded. Of course, if everyone is shooting at one guy and getting obvious critical hits, then you can guess that he is most wounded (and fire on him).

[Rand]

I think that is one of the disconnects I have with SR (and any game that has such short combat rounds - particularly with multiple actions) is that things are happening so fast it doesn't seem possible to completely react - even with the augmentations - at least not with full knowledge of what it going on. Which, I think is somewhat realistic, and as my mind works that way (as in realistically) it is really the only way I can run. When games get so abstract (like D&D of any flavor), I have a hard time "getting into" the game, it feels too much like a boardgame. I like my RPGs to be more "simulist" I guess.

In the situation, I was thinking that they were doing things at the same time - or within about .25 seconds of each other*. To me, this means that it is nigh impossible to see everything going on and react to it, with or without a perception test. (Maybe in a Supers game where a character is like Dr. Manhattan, basically god-like in all ways, but not mere mortals, even enhanced ones. IMO.)

But, in deference to "game-balance/mechanics" I could allow them a perception check, though I would make it a fairly hard threshold.

I would have allowed him to take a negative on his initiative to make a perception test.

PS: The creatures didn't last past the first IP - as usual in SR. (Though they did inflict some pretty-good damage during their surprise actions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )

*Here's how fast I think all those actions happened: Clap your hands. Now, from the time your hands touched to the end of the sound (not the memory of the sound) fully react in that timeframe, with the ability to pick and choose your targets.

[Tanegar]

I don't think you're fully appreciating the nature of initiative augmentations. A character with four IPs can take eight simple actions - say, firing a semi-automatic weapon - in three seconds. That's 0.375 seconds per shot, or 160 rounds/minute... pulling the trigger manually. I'm not sure where you're getting the quarter-second figure from. Isn't it more reasonable to assume that the shooter takes his time selecting a target ("taking his time" being a relative term, of course, as I just demonstrated), and shoots in, say, the last half of the round? Even if he only has two IPs, he can still squeeze off two rounds in 1.5 seconds. A character with three or four IPs almost literally has all the time in the world to pick his targets.

[Dwight]

What do you think?

I think everyone at the table would have come away happier if you'd given up on this particular slice of reality once you sat down to play, even better if you did it before that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Shadowrun combat isn't really built to emphasis (or support) the fog of combat. It doesn't really behove the GM to try keep it up (it's a PITA, slows the game down, etc) and it doesn't encourage the players to follow it, on the contrary it screams at them not to. So you are left making Dick moves like you did to try bring it to the table. Although having a roll based on the character ability would have helped emensely, still the player would likely feel cheated, and I suspect I would, too...see question at the bottom of the post.

Ironically rules that do emphasis fog of combat will drive some people up the wall, they'll swear up and down it's not "realistic". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

A question, if they hadn't tied on the Init rolls would you have done the same thing? Has anything like this come up and have you done something like this before?

[Karoline]

Yeah, you're forgetting that a person with 4 IP literally reacts four times as fast as a normal human, as in time virtually slows down, and 3 seconds seems like 12 seconds for them. So even someone with 4 IP that is shooting every 3/8ths of a second has a relative 1.5 seconds to plan that shot. Personally I think that I could react reasonably well for taking one shot in 1.5 seconds. That's certainly more time than the length of time for sound to travel about two feet from my hands to my ears as you suggest.

[KarmaInferno]

My personal GM motto for in-game stuff:

Don't tell a player, "No."

Tell them "How", and give consequences for their actions.




-karma

[suoq]

Three thoughts:

1) You're playing a game. Do you feel your decision made the game more fun for everyone at the table?

2) If the closest target was dead would you still have forced the character to shoot the dead guy? Wouldn't that have also fallen under "the actions were happening so fast, and so close together that he couldn't actively choose his target using the game information of who was hurt and who wasn't"?

3) My perspective is that you changed the rules in the middle of the gunfight. Normally, players choose their action on their turn. Up until this point have you ever not allowed a player to choose his action on his turn?

[Method]

I'm going emphasize again that I don't think you were unreasonable. A lot of people seem to think you made a "wrong" call, but I think there is a balance somewhere between what your player wanted and what you decided. Whether or not this was fun for the people at the table is a judgement call to be made *by the people at the table*. My group tends to be simulationist, so they would likely agree with your assessment in this case and still enjoy themselves.

With that in mind, I don' think its unreasonable to say that the player can't make decisions based on the outcomes of actions that are supposed to be happening simultaneously, any more than a player can make decisions based on things that haven't happened yet. That seems to be self evident, but its very easy to use metagame information to anticipate what is going to happen in the next turn or the next action and respond. I don't think you are out of line for not allowing such.

On the other hand I do think that you can look at someone and tell how hurt they are (generally speaking and in most cases) provided you have enough time to make that assessment. I don't think you should tell your players "Mook B has 4 boxes of damage and Mook E has 3 boxes" but if he asks "Which one looks to be hurt the worst?" its not metagaming to tell him one or the other. I would note that the information doesn't have to be accurate- as Yerameyahu's pointed out the one that looks to be hurt the worst might not be. But in general I make my players spend an action to observe in detail if the info they want isn't immediately obvious (like pulsatile arterial blood spraying out the Mook's neck, for example).

So were you wrong? No.
Could you have handled it differently? Yes.
Was it fun for your players? Ask your players.

[Method]

My personal GM motto for in-game stuff:

Don't tell a player, "No."

Tell them "How", and give consequences for their actions.

Good advise.

[Dwight]

With that in mind, I don' think its unreasonable to say that the player can't make decisions based on the outcomes of actions that are supposed to be happening simultaneously...

There-in is the rub. The actions aren't simultaneous, otherwise you wouldn't need the tie-breaker.

[Unilaterally] Changing rules in the middle of the combat to penalize a better roll over a poorer one. This is not a reasonable course of action.

[Method]

According to RAW they are. SR4A page 144 is pretty explicit: "If two characters get the same score, then they act simultaneously."

Yes there are rules for resolving ties, but whether it was "imperative to determine which one acts first" in this situation is up to GM, and he seems to think that things were happening too fast for the characters to make distinctions. Besides, if that were the case he didn't use the appropriate series of attribute comparisons (as indicated by RAW) anyway so this character might not have been last and the whole argument is moot.

So I'll stand by my point: if things are deemed to be happening simultaneously (or close enough that you need to break out the rule book and resolve a tie) I don't think its unreasonable to say that the player can't make decisions based on the outcomes of the other actions.

[suoq]

So I'll stand by my point: if things are deemed to be happening simultaneously (or close enough that you need to break out the rule book and resolve a tie) I don't think its unreasonable to say that the player can't make decisions based on the outcomes of the other actions.

I think if you're going to do that, you should ask the characters to decide what they're doing before anyone in the simultaneous action starts rolling dice.

[Dwight]

According to RAW they are. SR4A page 144 is pretty explicit: "If two characters get the same score, then they act simultaneously."

Is that new?

So then Rand pooched it prior to that. All actions chosen, then all roll, then apply results. Screw the [incorrectly determined] tie-breaker altogether. Have them happen simultaneously, or not.

And stop unilaterally making up rules middle of stuff. "GM says blah, blah, blah." That's the road to suckville.

[Yerameyahu]

That doesn't appear to matter in the issue of 'using info you don't have', Dwight. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Making these kind of calls is exactly what the GM is for, and he didn't do anything wrong… unless, of course, there's a pre-existing rule saying that the player should expect to be able to target 'the most wounded' enemy? (There isn't.)

[Dwight]

That doesn't appear to matter in the issue of 'using info you don't have', Dwight. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well it certainly addresses unevenly applying "simultaneous". On the "using info you don't have" issue:
1) it DOES resolve it because it truly removes the information....
2) ....thus removing the temptation and even the perception that it is being used (well 'metagaming' is still being used, metagaming is pervasive, it has to be because the numbers are how we understand WTF is going on, it's our only input)
EDIT: 2.5) players/GM still gets to make the decisions they are used to making using the information they normally have (and don't have)
3) much fun has been thrown out in attempts to toss the 'evil' metagaming bathwater, this sure sounds like another tally on that front

Making these kind of calls is exactly what the GM is for...

If they aren't getting nods around the table, if it isn't in the end consensus, the GM is performing this [largely unnecessary] role poorly. Or they are playing with the Wrong People.

Now if there are unanimous nods around the table from everyone that that is how they want to play these ties? *shrug* Well then Rand did a stellar job (assuming they have foreseen all the consequences of it).

[Method]

I think if you're going to do that, you should ask the characters to decide what they're doing before anyone in the simultaneous action starts rolling dice.

A very good idea if you ask me.

Is that new?

Not since SR4.

So then Rand pooched it prior to that. All actions chosen, then all roll, then apply results. Screw the [incorrectly determined] tie-breaker altogether. Have them happen simultaneously, or not.

No body is perfect. We could all be better GMs.

And stop unilaterally making up rules middle of stuff. "GM says blah, blah, blah." That's the road to suckville.

While GM-fiat can have its drawbacks, at some point someone has to make a decision to resolve situations like these and move the game forward.

[DingoJones]

If they aren't getting nods around the table, if it isn't in the end consensus, the GM is performing this [largely unnecessary] role poorly. Or they are playing with the Wrong People.

Now if there are unanimous nods around the table from everyone that that is how they want to play these ties? *shrug* Well then Rand did a stellar job (assuming they have foreseen all the consequences of it).

I disagree. The GM and the players approach the game with different mentalities. You cannot depend on the player to make those kinds of decisions becuase a player isn't as interested in

1) Game balance...it's the rare player who doesn't take an edge in the game if he can. It only makes sense from a players perspective.
2) universal game mechanics. The player doesn't design the adventures, doesn't create the encounters and isn't depended on to make judgment calls concerning the rules. They care about the mechanics that they use, or there party members use.

If you did a concensus on these kinds of rules then the players would run amok. There are always more players than GM (singular for the most part), so all judgment calls would would be biased on behalf of the players themselves.
I'm not suggesting the GM be a draconian control freak or not listen to input from players, it's the GM's job to be objective and run the game. If he is doing that, his judgment calls shouldn't be called into question. Giving the players the kind of control concensus gives them is a basd idea and will end poorly, someone will end up not having fun and since the GM is the guy who makes the game happen at least some effort should go towards keeping the game fun for him\her. Concensus for rules calls is the worst idea I've heard in a while.

[Rand]

Hey all, thanks for all the input. Excellent responses.

I think everyone at the table would have come away happier if you'd given up on this particular slice of reality once you sat down to play, <snip>

Not everyone. Most didn't care one way or the other, with the only one not liking it being the one player affected (shocking). I was happier the way I had it go. So not everyone it seems....

A question, if they hadn't tied on the Init rolls would you have done the same thing? Has anything like this come up and have you done something like this before?

In the past, with different initiatives totals I didn't, but whenever I feel there may be a reason for confusion, then I will call for something - like a perception check or the like. The key here is: a reason. Now, I didn't put it in the original post, and maybe I should have, but they where in very dark tunnels (actually absorbing light/heat a bit so the lights they had were less effective) that were kind of tight. Also, the fact that one creature (unhurt) was closer to the attacking character makes me believe that the "self-preservation" mode would/could kick in.

My personal GM motto for in-game stuff:

Don't tell a player, "No."

Tell them "How", and give consequences for their actions.

As far as I am concerned, this is the best advice yet, and something I will definately apply in the future as I love to inspire creativity in my players.

[Unilaterally] Changing rules in the middle of the combat to penalize a better roll over a poorer one. This is not a reasonable course of action.

Good thing I didn't do this then, huh? As everyone involved had the exact same initiative, no one had a better or worse roll than anyone else - except for those players that had lower initiatives that is, and aren't a part this discussion.

I do see two other good ideas from all of this: 1) Less info at the table. I usually don't let out a lot, but sometimes when I want to make a player feel good about what they did, or when I get a bit lazy (hey,. it happens), or when tired. But, that shouldn't count when a player makes a decision on what they are going to do, metagaming is bad -just don't do it! 2) Declare actions prior to rolling initiative and impose "changing action penalties".

[Dwight]

Not everyone. Most didn't care one way or the other, with the only one not liking it being the one player affected (shocking). I was happier the way I had it go. So not everyone it seems....

See Method, this was NOT about moving the game forward. The game was ready to move forward just fine by itself if Rand hadn't interjected himself. He unilaterally decided his happiness trumped someone else. Shocking indeed.

Now he comes on here trying to get validation for his Dick move.